Bill C-48 (Historical)

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion in respect of the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the purposes and in the aggregate amount specified. This enactment also provides that, for its purposes, the Governor in Council may authorize a minister to undertake a specified measure.

The Budget

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, despite Conservative obstruction, Bill C-48, the NDP's better balanced budget bill, is back in the House for third and final reading. What is the Conservative contribution to delivering much needed investments in every region of our country so far? To delete all the clauses of the bill.

Conservative MPs, including from Nova Scotia, are asking the House not to invest in lower tuition fees in post-secondary education, not to invest in affordable housing, not to invest in public transit or cleaner air, not to invest half a billion dollars more in international aid, despite their own members' voting at the foreign affairs committee to support an NDP motion to increase Canada's ODA to 0.7% of our GDP. What hypocrisy.

Canadians deserve better. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. I am proud to be part of a caucus that has worked relentlessly to make this Parliament work and to deliver the investments Canadians need. It is past time for the official opposition in the same spirit to stop the huffing and puffing, get to work and deliver Bill C-48 to Canadians.

Committees of the House

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments. The committee agreed on Monday, June 13, 2005 to report it with amendments.

I want to thank all the members who worked diligently and expeditiously on the clause by clause last night so the House could get the bill passed and we can get out of here for the summer.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this motion with my Conservative colleague. The Bloc Québécois was under the impression that she needed unanimous consent in order to move the motion, and we were not prepared to give it at this time. The problem, in part, is that this amendment is far too open-ended. It gives the minister far too many opportunities to abuse this provision.

In light of our discussions, I understand the desire to give the government more flexibility in enforcing this legislation. At the same time, however, we have a number of concerns about the kinds of funds that would be created in order to allocate monies to the greenhouse gas technology investment fund.

Our question remains. Could a new foundation be created? We saw what happened with the foundations, where funds are invested but not used in the same way. The motion just moved by the member in no way prevents private funds from being used. For example, nothing would prevent an oil consortium from creating a fund.

So we are not entirely convinced that this is an acceptable motion. It gives the government a blank cheque. In our opinion, Bill C-48 is already much too open-ended and not specific enough about how the money will be spent. The member's motion would make things worse. Perhaps she can explain a bit better the spirit in which this motion was moved? However, at this time, I can say that we will not support this motion.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I might help the hon. member out and remind her that it was not only the Conservative Party that warned about deficit spending, something that we are very concerned about with this new deal. The Minister of Finance warned the House that deficit spending was a very real possibility when we got into, as he described it, cherry-picking or taking things away from one part or adding new spending to another part. There have been irresponsible spending announcements with no real plan to announce a budget bill. Bill C-48, with just two or three lines in it, has unleashed an unprecedented amount of unplanned and uncontrolled spending.

Why is the member so afraid of job saving tax relief? We have industries in Canada that are operating under an excessive burden. Does she not realize that the vast majority of Canadians work for a company or a corporation such as General Motors, Ford, Telus or any number of companies that have to compete in a global environment with other nations and companies. We have to give them that competitive edge. It does not matter how much they invest in other areas. If Canadians do not have jobs, if they do not have employment in secure and stable industries, it will not matter. No one will be working to pay taxes for the programs about which the member herself is concerned.

Those are a couple of things she should consider. She should always remember that the finance minister, who cut this deal with Buzz Hargrove and the leader of the NDP in a hotel room somewhere, warned about deficit spending.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. I wish to designate Tuesday, June 14 as an allotted day, which means that the main estimates shall be dealt with that day.

Tomorrow we will begin report stage of Bill C-43, which is the first budget bill. This bill will be our priority until it is disposed of. When Bill C-48, the second budget bill, is reported from committee, it, too, shall be given our top priority.

There are discussions among the parties concerning the early disposal of Bill C-2, the child protection legislation; Bill C-53, the bill respecting proceeds of crime; and possibly Bill C-56, the Labrador-Inuit legislation.

The other pieces of legislation that we can anticipate debating in the next week are: Bill C-26, the border services bill; Bill S-18, the census legislation; Bill C-25, RADARSAT; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment; Bill C-28, the Food and Drugs Act amendments; Bill C-37, the do not call legislation; Bill C-44, the transport legislation; and Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill.

International Aid

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, the government has committed to an annual 8% increase that will set us on a path that triples the volume of our aid from the year 2001 to 2015. To put this in perspective, I think we need to understand that 8% is roughly twice the rate of growth of government revenue and virtually no other part of government is growing this quickly.

Our commitment is very clear. We understand exactly what we are doing and where we are going. What I am confused about is that the hon. member is a member of a party that will not even support Bill C-48 with half a billion dollars coming to my aid projects.

Bill C-48

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great that the leader of the NDP has allowed the minister to come before the committee.

We want to point to the Auditor General's report when it talked about the sponsorship program. She said, “We would have expected the government to provide Parliament with at least a description of the program and its objectives”.

None of that is in Bill C-48. This is an expenditure of $4.6 billion and yet the government refuses to bring forward the minister who would actually have to implement the bill.

Is this not just an admission that the government cannot stand scrutiny on Bill C-48?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for other ministers but I know I am scheduled to appear before the committee. I think it is on Monday or Tuesday. I will be happy to be there and go through all the details of Bill C-48 with any of my cabinet colleagues who would care to attend with me.

The fact is that this is good legislation. It is delivering on important commitments. I hope the opposition party will ultimately support it.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP are outraged with the Liberals on the one hand and prop them up on the other.

Bill C-48 is now before the finance committee. The Conservative Party has asked that the ministers responsible for foreign aid, housing, infrastructure, post-secondary education and the environment appear before the committee to explain how the money would be spent. Seven ministers in all and they all refused to come. We asked for officials to come and they also all refused.

Is this not just an admission that Bill C-48, the NDP budget deal, is so poorly designed that the government cannot even defend it?

Transfer Payments

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, transfers are increasing already.

The inconsistency in the hon. gentleman's question is just breathtaking. He asks for a larger transfer for post-secondary education. That is in fact included through assistance to students in Bill C-48 which he opposes.

Department of Social Development Act

[Christian Simard, Bloc, Beauport, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to talk about Bill C-22, to establish the Department of Social Development. With all the questions and odd things heard recently, I believe it is very important to put certain elements back in their proper context.

When we say we are interested in obtaining the money we pay in taxes in order to develop the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, we are not begging or asking for something that does not belong to us. It is about delivering services to the people policies are designed for, and not about duplication, encroachment, petty politics or the development of very complex, piecemeal programs within huge departments that duplicate public services. That does not help anybody.

I understand the NDP is having considerable difficulty with these data, because it thinks Ottawa knows best. It is not surprising that often, despite its sometimes noble objectives, it is so far removed from the heart of Canadians and so misunderstood by the public.

The New Democratic Party has the sort of vision that whatever comes from Parliament Hill and flows toward the provinces is a good thing. Rather than debate things where they have to be debated, they think that in the case of whatever is called local development, whatever comes out of the communities or whatever is done in the provinces, a short cut, a national standard, a national program, the great department will replace an integrated approach, proximity of services and provincial accountability. However, they are mistaken, and this is not the way to get support from people.

Maybe it is the way it is done in certain ridings on the west island, I do not know, but I have a hard time imagining someone in my riding saying: “I am suffering from my missing pan-Canadian program. It is hurting me. I have a big problem. You know, I never got my pan-Canadian cheque. I do not have my pan-Canadian day care. I have a fine Quebec day care. The people are nice, but it is not pan-Canadian. It does not have a Canadian flag, and my children are suffering. Public services are suffering too”.

I do not think so and I cannot imagine people asking me for a pan-Canadian system, duplication or Canadian day care over Quebec day care. I do not know how they do that. Do they want a Tim Hortons beside a Dunkin' Donuts? What are they trying to do?

If they are trying to help people in need, to undertake real social development, really increase resource efficiency, do they need to create department after department? Do they need to create little program after little program? Do they have to create things that already exist? Do they need to negotiate 10 years each time over financial compensation for day care and parental leave? Is that serving the public? I do not think so. Really, it is doing the public no service.

And what about the creation of the Department of Social Development? With respect to programs for people with a disability, yes, everyone supports virtue and opposes vice. We all like apple pie. However, we do not agree with having a number of cooks making different apple pies in different ways for the same person. In the end, it does not work. It produces bad results. It is expensive and cumbersome. So, the government wants to create Canadian departments, especially to promote its importance and not with a view to efficiency in areas of respective jurisdiction.

So, there is a fundamental problem because the federal government has spent more—the Comité Léonard proved this—in areas under the jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec then in its own areas of jurisdiction.

Given what happened with the HMCS Chicoutimi , the Halifax class frigates or the HMCS Toronto , would it not have been better to what it has to do instead of trying to do what others do very well? Why not apply this to post-secondary education?

I had hoped that this would be clear to the NDP as well in terms of Bill C-48. There is no need to duplicate departments responsible for education and standards. Why duplicate, why redo what is being done well? For the pleasure of saying, “I am in education too; I am in social development too” or for the pleasure of seeing the Canadian flag everywhere?

There was the sponsorship scandal; will there be a social sponsorship scandal? More money will be spent, less and less effectively, on regional development simply to show that it too can spend, even if it makes no sense, even if it has nothing to do with integrated management policies, even if it is removed from the public, and even if it causes both systems to fail. There is a will to centralize.

Supply Management

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, as you can see, the hon. member raises several important points with this simple question.

I do not know how to cover everything that he mentioned but I will start by saying that the best managed supply in this country might be the supporters of supply management within the Conservative Party. If it has managed to bring that into the party position I am very glad. I am glad that all parties support supply management within this country.

One of the elements in Bill C-48 is the question of foreign aid. I think foreign aid has a great benefit to our agriculture because we have to build the trading partners across the world, as well as the system, so we can benefit from that trade.

Finally, the member brings parallels between agriculture and fisheries and I think that is important at many levels. I know and the member knows that the fishery is at an all time high in Canada in terms of the amount of exports but not at an all time high with regard to the amount of jobs because with modernization there has been a change.

I see the same thing in agriculture. I see it in my riding. The dairy farms are buying quota from one another, like fishermen buy quota from one another. Dairy farms being a little bigger they need more cows to earn the money or build the capital assets they want for their families or for retirement. The Canadian Almanac has long since disappeared from the kitchen of the farms and the computer has replaced it. They are family farm businesses, small businesses run by small business people.

I regret that the 12 year old boy does not have the ambition to go into farming. I hope we have a next generation. As in fisheries, that is a challenge because the capital cost for the next generation to go into the business is very high.

On the international side there are parallels also. On the question of supply management, we manage the supply that is produced, the price at which it is produced and the distribution methods. It works quite well. In the fisheries we manage the quota but the quota is based on the stocks. The stocks are negotiated internationally and sometimes there are chances for abuse.

We have to be strong in our negotiations and we have to be balanced. We know that sometimes we need to have some give and take. If we get there with a sledge hammer immediately, protecting one sector of the industry, which I would like to see because I have a lot of supply managed farms in my riding, we would risk the negotiations that will help the other side of the agricultural industry, which is the export side that wants a level playing field internationally.

It is not very easy for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food nor for the Minister of International Trade. Some people suggested that the Minister of International Trade would have a problem in using article XXVIII, should it ever be done. The Minister of Agriculture who is from a rural area will understand the expression very well when I suggest to him that if the time comes for that, he should bring the Minister of International Trade behind the barn.

The Budget

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He has played a very strong role as the chair of the government caucus on post-secondary education and research and in fact helped to secure the $1 billion in further federal support for science and research that is in the budget of February 23. That builds on about $5 billion per year that our government already invests in education and higher learning. Bill C-48 adds another $1.5 billion over the next two years especially for student assistance.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, post-secondary education and skills training is increasingly important in our global economy. To be competitive in today's economy, we must invest in Canada's future to ensure a strong, knowledge based workforce. I believe that Bill C-48 is a step in that direction and I think most Canadians agree.

In light of that, could the Minister of Finance please tell Canadians what will be lost in this area if the House does not pass Bill C-48?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the repetition of a fallacious premise does not make it true. The spending profile difference before and after Bill C-48 is the grand total of 1%. Within the fiscal flexibility that was built into the framework on February 23, there is ample room to cope with the new spending initiatives of, as I say, barely 1%.

The Government of Canada has delivered for over a decade now the most fiscally responsible performance in the history of our country and we will stick by it.